The New York Times <\/p>\n
June 26, 2008 <\/p>\n
House Votes to Expand Civil Rights for Disabled <\/p>\n
By ROBERT PEAR <\/p>\n
WASHINGTON – The House passed a major civil rights bill on Wednesday
\nthat would expand protections for people with disabilities and
\noverturn several Supreme Court decisions issued in the last decade. <\/p>\n
The bill, approved 402 to 17, would make it easier for workers to
\nprove discrimination. It would explicitly relax some stringent
\nstandards set by the court and says that disability is to be
\n“construed broadly,” to cover more physical and mental impairments. <\/p>\n
Supporters of the proposal said it would restore the broad
\nprotections that Congress meant to establish when it passed the
\nAmericans With Disabilities Act that President George Bush signed in
\n1990. <\/p>\n
Lawmakers said Wednesday that people with epilepsy, diabetes, cancer,
\ncerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis and other ailments had been
\nimproperly denied protection because their conditions could be
\ncontrolled by medication or were in remission. In a Texas case, for
\nexample, a federal judge said a worker with epilepsy could not be
\nconsidered disabled because he was taking medications that reduced the
\nfrequency of seizures. <\/p>\n
In deciding whether a person is disabled, the bill says, courts
\nshould generally not consider the effects of “mitigating measures”
\nlike prescription drugs, hearing aids and artificial limbs. Moreover,
\nit adds, “an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a
\ndisability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when
\nactive.” <\/p>\n
The chief sponsor of the bill, the House Democratic leader,
\nRepresentative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said the situation was now
\nbizarre. “An individual may be considered too disabled by an employer
\nto get a job, but not disabled enough by the courts to be protected by
\nthe A.D.A. from discrimination,” Mr. Hoyer said. <\/p>\n
The chief Republican sponsor, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner
\nJr. of Wisconsin, said the Supreme Court had “chipped away at the
\nprotections” of the 1990 law, leaving millions of Americans with no
\nrecourse or remedy for discrimination. <\/p>\n
His wife, Cheryl Sensenbrenner, has testified in support of the bill
\nas chairwoman of the American Association of People With Disabilities,
\nan advocacy group. Mrs. Sensenbrenner suffered a spinal cord injury in
\n1972, when she was 22, and sometimes uses a wheelchair. In addition,
\nshe noted in an interview, she has a sister with Down syndrome. <\/p>\n
Supporters of the bill immediately shifted their attention to the
\nSenate, which is expected to pass a similar bipartisan measure.
\nSenator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat leading the effort, predicted
\nthat the Senate would act “in the near future.” <\/p>\n
The White House said that although President Bush “supports the
\noverall intent” of the House bill, he was concerned that it “could
\nunduly expand” coverage and significantly increase litigation. <\/p>\n
The House bill reflects a deal worked out in months of negotiations
\nby business groups and advocates for the disabled. The United States
\nChamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers
\nhelped shape the bill and endorsed it as a balanced compromise. <\/p>\n
Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, called the
\nSupreme Court reading of the 1990 law “cramped and misguided.”
\nRemedial legislation is needed now more than ever, Mr. Nadler said,
\nbecause “thousands of men and women in uniform are returning from Iraq
\nand Afghanistan with serious injuries, including the loss of limbs and
\nhead trauma.” <\/p>\n
The House Republican whip, Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, said
\nthe bill “puts people to work, creates opportunity and makes America a
\nmore productive country” by unlocking new pools of talent. <\/p>\n
The 1990 law said “individuals with disabilities are a discrete and
\ninsular minority.” The bill passed Wednesday deletes that phrase,
\nwhich the Supreme Court has cited as a reason for limiting the
\ndefinition of disability. <\/p>\n
The law generally prohibits an employer from discriminating against a
\nqualified individual who has, or is perceived as having, a disability,
\ndefined as a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits”
\none or more major life activities. <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court said in 2002 that “these terms need to be
\ninterpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as
\ndisabled.” To meet this test, the court said, a person has to have “an
\nimpairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from
\ndoing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily
\nlives.” <\/p>\n
Under the bill passed on Wednesday, Congress would establish a less
\nstringent standard, saying an impairment qualifies as a disability if
\nit “materially restricts” a major life activity like seeing, hearing,
\neating, walking, reading or thinking. <\/p>\n
Source:
\n